Greg Doudna

Why “inexplicable that the cab driver & car salesman did not recognize each other since the former habituated the dominoes club across the street from the patter’s POB”? I worked at a place once with a bar across the street. I was in there maybe once or twice in three years. I doubt I personally knew 95% of their lunch regular crowd, and I did not know any cabbies unless I personally took a cab and talked to one. So I do not understand the dogmatism of the “it is inexplicable”. They said they didn’t know each other before that day. There is no evidence otherwise. Why leap to concluding they were lying? What motive?

Apart from Holmes Jr telling of his father’s story, both Callaway and Scoggins told of being stopped by what they thought was a law enforcement car which is not otherwise identified. And Helen Markham told Croy, within moments, of seeing Callaway or Scoggins taking Tippits gun with them and leaving the scene of the crime, and then WFAA-TV filmed Tippits revolver in the hands of police at the crime scene in agreement in timing with Callaway’s account of when they returned. I agree the “at gunpoint” of Holmes Sr as told by Jr could be an embellishment in the retelling or maybe it wasn’t who knows, but the persons and encounter itself are all plausible and hang together from the multiple firsthand accounts. All these average random people were not lying and intentionally fabricating wholesale in concert with one another, as part of some orchestrated alternative fictitious narrative. A model of witnesses who almost entirely (n.b. almost; occasional exceptions but uncommon) intended to be truthful but were fallible and made mistakes in perception and memory and influence etc, without a master plan from an invisible top manager marionette-stringing the testimony of cooperating operative wittingly perjuring witnesses, is closer to the accurate picture. That a cop and security officer could be mistaken one for the other is not “absurd”. Scoggins testified he thought Callaway was a plain clothes cop, etc, easy mistake to make in the heat of the moment if someone is seen issuing orders especially if armed.

Pat S., I said I would not speak further on this until restudying your chapters but I would like to ask you about the item of Sandra Styles from the Sean Murphy interview told by David von Pein just now. Sandra says she and Vicki tried first to take the front—that’s the southeast!—elevator down but finding it inoperable could not. That alone knocks out the quick descent time which Sandra also told Sean was wrong. But back to that SE elevator attempt, Sandra sounds very credible, plus a first attempt to take an elevator including trying that SE elevator for women in heels makes a lot of sense in terms of plausibility rather than a stairway for four floors descent. Everyone has thought they might have tried the freight elevators at the NW but no, Sandra says it was the SE elevator they tried. That’s a round trip walking of the two women across the full length of the second floor before descent on the NW stairs. I respect your research and from my memory I thought your analysis of Dougherty’s movements was very interesting and convincing, differing from what is conventionally thought. But I wonder if in the end Sandra Styles’ version here is more accurate than Vicki’s. It does seem to come down to picking one or the other of those women with the other being mistaken, the only issue being which one was mistaken. I wonder if you would comment. It is the detail of the SE elevator that is so striking from Sandra to me which I don’t recall having registered on me before David’s quoting it above. Thanks—

Responsive to request (two of the below have been shown you before). Apart from incomplete photos of pages--many datebook transcriptions given in Coup in Dallas and cited as the basis for discussion and argument have no photos at all for those pages of the datebook--and the poor quality of the photos unreadable for many of the datebook's pages which are given; and the lack of a single transcription in a single location but bits and pieces scattered through hundreds of pages never collated ... and in the one place where some consecutive dated entries are listed, pp. 575-76 the transcriptions have mostly ellipses ... and quite a number of readable words in the poor photographs appear never to be transcribed at all anywhere in the book ... never mind all that, as requested here are transcriptions I have found that do not match the photographs (except for the last which was called to attention by Andrej Stancak). (1) Page 576, for Oct 6 a transcription is reported: "Oswald issue!...". The photograph of the Oct 6 page, p. 582 is "Oswald issue (!)" That one does not affect meaning, but in a transcription of an author's original handwriting, punctuation matters. (2) Page 576, for Nov 20 a transcription is reported: "Lamy--Filiol ... call Storey ... DeM ... Frank B. ..." The photograph of the Nov 20 page, p. 585, has the first four names and a final three lines of writing where the fifth name, Frank B., would be expected but the letters and words do not read "Frank B." There is no "Frank B." on that page. Either the transcriber hallucinated it, or the Nov 20 entry in the datebook was written after the transcription and the writer of the entry into the datebook forgot to update the transcription. In the latter case the transcription began as a rough draft for composition of the entries in the datebook, in the planning of the writing, before the entries were written into the pages of the datebook. I called that mismatch to your attention on 7/28/23 on this forum (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29044-pierre-lafitte-datebook-1963/page/5/). (3) Pages 1 and 576, for Nov 9 a transcription is reported: "on the wings of murder..." The photograph of the Nov 9 page on p. 586 has "O the wings of murder". (4) Also, page 1, for Nov 9 the transcription given is "Clip, clip his wings" but the photo is "Clip /clip his wings". (5) Page 575, for June 7 a transcription is reported: "John "W-H"". The photograph of the June 7 page on p. 579 has "John 'Wilson-H'". (6) Page 575, for Aug 16 a transcription is reported: "Antoinnes" with two n's and no apostrophe; on page 116 as "Antoine's" with one n and apostrophe. The photograph of the Aug 16 page on p. 580 has "Antoines", one n and no apostrophe. (7) Also page 575, for Aug 16 a transcription is reported: "Joannides" spelled with two n's. On page 116 a transcription of the same word is reported differently, "Joanides", spelled with only one n. Neither is correct. The photograph of the Aug 16 page on p. 580 has "Joan" (or is that "John"?). There are no final letters "-ides". (8) This last item was brought to your attention by Andrej Stancak on this forum on 7/29/23 (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29044-pierre-lafitte-datebook-1963/page/8/). At pages xii and 407, for Nov 20 a transcription is reported as "rifle into building". The photograph of the Nov 20 entry at p. 585 however shows "rifle into buiding" (sic; misspelling). I am not claiming infallibility in the above nor is this list exhaustive; this is the best I can do off-the-cuff from abysmally bad photographs. I am sure any number of persons with good eyes could not only find more, but could prepare for you a far more accurate, critical edition transcription of the datebook, if you would permit them not only to see, but be permitted by you to speak of what they see, on the basis of the better photos which you resolutely refuse to permit access to any who will not submit to your totalitarian control over their speaking, writing, and free expression of what their eyes see of the writing of the datebook, which you allege provides the solution to the JFK assassination. It would be an utter, total travesty, just about the worst possible way to publish a document in the scholarly world, if the document were authentic from 1963. If it is a forgery then there is no great loss except to those taken in by it.

I don’t think you understood my point Sandy. I believe H that Jerrie said both of those things, because I don’t think either was willfully fabricating. But the one thing had nothing to do with the other, distinct issues. And, I am skeptical that June Cobb impersonated Jerrie though I do not doubt that Jerrie told H that and believed it. Neither of these things that Jerrie told H were wilfully fabricated by Jerrie although the second may or may not have been a misunderstanding, and neither logically establish that Jerrie had intelligence connections. That’s all I meant.

(I added the bolding to yours above.) No, Jerrie Cobb having that conversation telling Haverstick that she had been a charter pilot for Life magazine photographers that day does not "mean that Jerrie Cobb probably did say that she'd heard that June Cobb had impersonated her". Logical non sequitur. Although as a separate point, according to H Jerrie did claim that she had information that June Cobb had at some point impersonated her, Jerrie. But that does not "make it sound like Jerrie Cobb did in fact have intelligence ties". Also, I don't think any verification has been published, whether in or outside of H's book, that June Cobb ever impersonated Jerrie. I believe your point is if that happened Jerrie would have had inside intelligence information to have been told or known that. But she could have been told inaccurately as hearsay, could be mistaken, who knows. There is no evidence June Cobb impersonated Jerrie and it is not obvious why June Cobb would want to or why CIA would want her to do so. It is cited in H's book that David Atlee Phillips told Gaeton Fonzi of HSCA that June Cobb had a twin sister, Jerrie. That was not accurate, but could reflect some confusion over the two identities, as it is clear otherwise was the case for agencies. If that got back to Jerrie it could be mistakenly understood as intentional impersonation possibly. Jerrie may or may not have had intelligence debriefings or whatever of her own (who's to know for sure) but I do not think either of the points above establishes or indicates that. As I recall as H tells it, H was asking Jerrie about some things related to oddities of the JFK assassination and mentioned the Redbird airport aircraft that had attracted attention on Nov 22 because it remained on the runway for a period of time after the assassination running up its engines but not taking off, as if waiting for a passenger. As H tells it, when H mentioned that Jerrie reacted and said that pilot was her, and told H about the Life photographers' charter flight. As Jerrie told H, the issue with the aircraft taking off from the runway was related to airspace being restricted, not waiting for a passenger. But H did not believe Jerrie's "innocent" explanation of charter flying photographers for Life, and it was off to the races for the rest of the book.

I have no intention of retracting the plain fact that the published transcription does not always agree with the published photographs, but even if I did I don't think you would be willing to "continue this discussion" in the sense of being responsive to relevant questions. I think the non-responsiveness to relevant questions speaks for itself. I intend to move on to other things and hope this thread remains on topic with Jerrie Cobb and the Haverstick book.

Is anyone who receives these better photos from you able freely to discuss, quote from (within legal fair use), and publish comment upon, those photographs? You have previously stated on this forum that signing a NDA was required to obtain that, and I believe you indicated all who had received it had signed such. Are you prepared to say here that what you are offering is open access for research and discussion and publication thereof, without NDA or an other strings or controls from you attached preventing legal fair use? If not, why should anyone serious bother to get the better quality photo from you if you have control over the expression of their thoughts or findings from study of it? What legitimate researcher in their right mind would want that kind of muzzle control from you over them? Are you prepared to say here that any existing NDAs signed by any who have received those better photos which you offer in repair of the shoddy published ones, are hereby lifted? Don’t try to make the issue my expertise at transcription. The issue is you prevent anyone with expertise from freely examining and publishing research findings from better photographs. And with your moments-ago demand that I retract my statement that your shoddy published photographs do not in all cases agree with published published transcriptions of such in Coup in Dallas—I have cited one or two rather examples in the past on this forum and won’t repeat that here—you telegraph a pretty clear signal how you regard scholarly scrutiny or proposed corrections or improvements of your published transcriptions. And as litigous as your language and legal threats often are, this has a chilling effect on research and discussion. Why are you limiting access to the better quality photos only to those who purchased the book? What about people who see the book in a library? (Most scholars with expertise work out of libraries.)

The significance of finding the Life magazine photographers that Jerrie Cobb said she as pilot charter flew into Redbird airport on Nov 22, according to what Jerrie Cobb told Mary Haverstick, is Haverstick came to believe that meant Jerrie Cobb was involved in the JFK assassination and had flown in to go to Dealey Plaza to be the Babushka Lady, assassinate JFK personally, then make her way back to Redbird and fly away again. As part of this (wholly unfounded and implausible) conclusion, H questioned that any Life magazine photographers were Jerrie’s passengers, and suggested that Life magazine, with its maybe CIA associations, would falsely back up Jerrie’s story which H suggested was a cover story for Jerrie flying in to personally shoot JFK dead. And as presented in A Woman I Knew, H identifies that admission or “confession” of Jerrie, that she was a charter pilot who flew some magazine people to Dallas that day, as central to what motivated H’s line of investigation for the rest of the book. When as is seen from the Gary Murr chapter on the Holland McCombs Life magazine story, there was such a charter flight of Life magazine photographers sounding very close to what Jerrie Cobb told H. H shows no awareness of this Life magazine McCombs material telling of the charter flight to Dallas, which is not surprising because if it had not been for the accident of Gary Murr posting the link to his excellent unpublished chapter of research on the McCombs/Life story a day or two ago, nobody else would know of it either. Gary Murr got that from archived papers of Holland McCombs.

No I have not seen any better photos or been advised of contents of such, other than the poor photos in Coup in Dallas. I found errors in transcription from comparison with the legible portions of the poor published photos. If your interest was history and not tollgate monetization of content I would think reasonable observers might wonder why you don’t have high quality photographs donated for open access to the Mary Ferrell foundation on their website. You could still hold on to the physical artifact and make a gazillion off it if major authorities did perchance vet it and accept it as authentic, if that is a factor in your thinking.

Possible confirmation of Jerrie Cobb's charter flight of a Life magazine crew to Dallas at Redbird Airport on Nov 22, 1963 I believe Gary Murr's chapter on Connally may provide an independent account of that plane flight. It is in chapter 35 of volume 3 of Gary Murr's unpublished study of John Connally a link to which Murr posted elsewhere on this forum yesterday: https://www.transferbigfiles.com/6cf3ca5d-8028-4660-889e-21aef4e3382b/pWQUgeSCOckz0pusCGTnrA2. (For Gary Murr's comments about this chapter see here: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30025-pat-speer-on-the-ochelli-effect/page/2/#comment-524733.) If this is the same flight, this will confirm that what Jerrie Cobb told author Haverstick about being the pilot of a charter flight of Life people to Redbird Airport on Nov 22, 1963 was true, but it will also show that the flight was not from Miami as Haverstick reports but from Austin, Texas. However the person who chartered the flight in Austin was a Life person from Miami, which may be the source of that confusion in the reporting of what Jerrie Cobb told Haverstick. We may be able to see an earlier, independent and more accurate version of the story of that flight than the version told in Jerrie's old age to Haverstick and published in A Woman I Know. We may learn the names of the passengers on that flight and that the charter was one-way only (Austin to Dallas), with the pilot (Jerrie Cobb if it was her, according to Jerrie Cobb as reported by Haverstick) evidently either leaving Redbird "empty" of passengers after delivering them to the airport, or perhaps leaving with other passengers, but no longer Life people. Quoting from the Gary Murr manuscript, p. 1737: "Writing in 1983, [Time/Life correspondent] Holland McCombs claimed that at the precise moment of the Kennedy assassination he and photographer, Flip Schulke 'were on the University of Texas campus in Austin working on a LIFE project titled, "Sex On The Campus," or something like that. We were interviewing a group of students and sources in the Student Union Center when someone came to our table and and told me I was wanted on the phone.' However, writing almost twenty years prior to this recantation [sic? recitation?], an obviously 'fresher' McCombs described his positional attitude and reactions upon hearing of the assassination [the next paragraph is quoted from a letter of Feb 11, 1964 of Holland McCombs]: " 'Our Oswald logistics problems began about ten or fifteen minutes after the President was shot on November 22. Photographer Flip Schulke and I were interviewing a University of Texas coed about sex on the campus in the Student Union Cafeteria in Austin, Texas, when a girl at the next table yelled, "The President and Governor Connally have been shot in Dallas!" We jumped up from the table and rushed to the telephones. Mike Durham of the Miami Office had driven up from Houston to join us on the campus story. He chartered a plane and the three of us flew into Dallas. We taxied into the downtown,. saw people gathered in front of the Texas School Book Depository building and at the spot where the President was first hit. Mike and Flip went to the Texas School Book Depository Building for pictures of the spot from where the murderer fired the shot. I went on to the Adolphus Hotel and set up a sort of command post and headquarters in one wing of the hotel. Our troops began filtering in from Miami, New York, Chicago, and California.' "Upon comparing other materials in the Holland McCombs Papers, this earlier retelling of his November 22, 1963 campus encounter would appear to be the more accurate of the two. The proper chronological sequence of events is that McCombs, Schulke, and Durham did hear of the assassination event 'second hand,' word of mouth from an unidentified student. Thereafter upon finding a campus telephone, McCombs apparently first called his wife who verified the startling account McCombs and the others had just heard from the coed. He then called 'Dick Billings, Bureau Chief in Miami' who suggested that all of them get to Dallas 'as quickly as possible...' and for McCombs 'to set up a command post at some motel or hotel best located for the obvious things to come.' McCombs complied..."

Sandy that is not a very intelligent comment, with respect to the criticisms I and others have raised toward the practice of quotations and citations from the Lafitte Datebook as if it is authentic when there is no authentication of the document, at the basis of Coup in Dallas. It is a document with absolutely sensational claims and Leslie, who is responsible, has not seen fit even now, in the year 2024 after publication of a lengthy book about it and tons of discussion, to even publish an accurate transcript (what is published is scattered in bits and pieces and filled with errors), or legible photos. If you want decent photos of the pages of the datebook that can be read (the ones she has published in Coup in Dallas are horrible and often literally unreadable) she has those for private distribution but requires people to sign a NDA (non-disclosure agreement)! Such that people cannot even discuss or comment in print upon the source text in those better photos, or publish corrections of errors in the published transcriptions from those better photos. She has refused to disclose a timeline of the history of this artifact and its whereabouts and possession so far as is known with names, locations, and dates of conveyance. She will not consider donating the document to a university or the Mary Ferrell Foundation so that reputable researchers can access and study the primary text and publish their findings without being prevented and controlled by those damnable NDA's. She exercises tight, monolithic control over the artifact, attacks and ad hominems all who call for authentication, responds by saying "take it or leave it". She will not disclose who conducted prior forensic authentication studies on the artifact or allow anyone to even ask for permission that those scientists be permitted to disclose the findings of prior authentication studies, breathing threats of lawsuits if any scientist would dare disclose or leak that forbidden data. She will not disclose who owns the artifact. She has physical possession of it but will not disclose its ownership status or its history of ownership with dates and details. There is no financial transparency. And she is nasty and vituperative toward any who ask such questions. Instead of you disparaging what you think are my misguided views on the JFK assassination, which has nothing to do with the issue of forgery or authenticity of a claimed primary text which she and others are flooding this forum and the research community with, the basis for Coup in Dallas ... you as moderator should be proactive in calling for authentication of a claimed sensational-find text before it is carte-blanche "admitted as evidence" for discussion. What Leslie is doing is the exact opposite of openness and access to information. And unless established otherwise, it should be presumed forged, simply as clean method. The too good to be true principle in investments. That is the issue with Coup in Dallas discussions on this forum you should be focusing upon, if you care about research standards. And here is something scandalous. Below is the obituary Leslie disclosed earlier on this thread of the obituary of Pierre Lafitte's widow, Renee, although Leslie misidentified her name as "Renee Chagnot" (from https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3879.0.html, which has some other good research from Tom Scully). Note that Renee died in the year 2000. In Coup in Dallas Hank Albarelli says he obtained access to the Lafitte Datebook from Renee and had discussions with Renee about it, meaning before 2000. According to Coup in Dallas Renee, then in her 90s, cheerfully told Albarelli about having known Lee Harvey Oswald and Marina personally, what they were like, about her dear husband Pierre having run the assassination of JFK but how he was a good man nevertheless, etc. Yet in none of Albarelli's books published after that time, prior to the posthumous Coup in Dallas published in 2021, does Albarelli mention the sensational information of the Lafitte datebook. What was up with that? Did Albaralli know about the Lafitte datebook and its sensational contents all that time and tell no one until somewhere mid-2010's decade for the first time? Anyway, the obituary (bolds are not mine and was unable to remove). O bituary - T e le grap h, T he (Nashua, NH) - June 22, 20 0 0 June 22, 2000 | Teleg raph, The (Nashua, NH) Reneé (Chag not) Martin, 95, of Goffstown, died Wednesday, June 21, 2000, at the Villa Crest Retirement Community in Manchester. Mrs. Martin was born Nov., 24, 1904 in Seloncour, France, to the late Emile and Eugenie (Guetal) Chagnot. She later moved to New York state. She was the widow of Jean Pierre Martin. Mrs. Martin worked as a model in New York City. She also owned a restaurant, "Couret's" with her first husband. She graduated from Hunter College with an associate's degree. Survivors include two sons, Michel E. Couret of Goffstown and Pierre X. Lafitte of Littleton; 11 grandchildren; nine great-grandchildren; and several nieces, nephews and cousins. T he French & Rising Funeral Home in Goffstown is in charge of arrangements. CIT AT ION (AGLC S T YLE)

Actually it’s stronger than that. Not a single named witness ever claimed more than one gunman involved, including Acquilla Clemons. The only known claim of more than one gunman was the anonymous writer of a letter published in Playboy. If that wasn’t a hoax I have suspected the author of that might be Tatum, but if so by the time he was outed and named as a witness he was talking single gunman too.

I will restudy what you have on this Pat. I had the impression that Shelley and Lovelady would have taken more time to go look, whatever, before deciding to return, and the two men Baker saw in his hurry might be black men known to be there and/or reporters making phone calls, but not Shelley and Lovelady that fast. Also Vicki and Sandra missing Baker and Truly on the stairs, neither seeing the other, while possible I suppose if it was right at the lunchroom encounter time, is a negative too. But I will be quiet about this further before listening to your analysis.

That is correct, Andrej Stancak suggested the possibility that an Oswald on the first floor (as Prayer Man) could have gone up to the second floor by the SE stairs and across the second floor to the NW rear stairs attempting a surreptitious exit there, but was stopped by the Baker encounter in the second floor lunchroom, and a good suggestion that is. In the reconstruction I developed (building upon Stancak's suggestion) I was also strongly influenced by William Kelly's discussion of the NW pneumatic door detail and how Baker spotted Oswald about to exit out into the NW stairway but turning back (Oswald did not go through the NW door after having come down the NW stairs). And Kelly got that from the earlier Howard Roffman, and everyone concerned is arguing from primary data and testimony, attempting to interpret rightly, whether correctly or mistakenly as the case may be. I have been following the Vicki Adams discussion with interest, and last night rechecked Barry Ernest's book again on this. It is puzzling, but my best guess is that Vicki and Sandra must have gone down after Truly and Baker came up; that nobody went down those rickety, noisy NW stairs before Vicki and Sandra; that Oswald probably did not come down from the 6th floor after the shots at all; and that the assassins, who may have fired another weapon than Oswald's rifle even though it was Oswald's rifle found there, either came down by means of an elevator or by remaining there and mixing with law enforcement indistinguishably and exiting in that way, one or the other. I do not know what Oswald was carrying that morning or why he would lie to Buell Frazier about what was in it, but I believe Frazier that the package was too short to have contained a broken-down rifle that would then be assembled and fired accurately that day without sighting-in. I think the palm print of Oswald Day said was on the rifle stock may have been genuine (against FBI agent Drain) but as Day said, that was an "old" print, not recent. And the rifle itself was Oswald's but what the Bugliosis and David von Peins, following the Warren Commission, and CTs too, have missed is that Oswald prepared that rifle for a conveyance on Nov 11 and there is no hard certainty or verification where or in whose custody that rifle was between Nov 11 and when it was found on the 6th floor TSBD on Nov 22 (I think I have shown that at https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Irving-Sport-Shop-109-pdf.pdf), overlooked foundation for reasonable doubt. And again the reasons Oswald was not the sole shooter from the 6th floor, even though his rifle was found there, and if he was not the sole shooter that dramatically weakens the case that he was any shooter: the lack of taking the shot when JFK was on Houston; the NAA results of the paraffin cheek test showing lack of gunshot residue on his face; the absence of reported find of gunshot residue on clothing; the huge number of witnesses who heard the final two shots close together inconsistent with a single shooter from a bolt-action rifle; the lack of professional expertise of Oswald as a shooter or assassin inconsistent with a professional assassination; Pat Speer's analysis on the earwitnesses' perception of location origin of the shots fired; the smell of gunsmoke by witnesses near the limousine with the wind direction excluding that coming from the sixth floor TSBD; the lack of ammunition or rifle cleaning supplies in his possessions; the absence of any credible practice shooting in the runup to the assassination; the lack of any known writing or plans or credible threat or motive for Oswald who liked JFK to have assassinated JFK; and finally the possibility that Prayer Man was Oswald. It is however easier to argue Oswald did not shoot Kennedy than to know or show who did. The wedding ring business, the package Friday morning, the lying of Oswald under interrogation... those I do not understand. That Oswald fled evasively after the assassination, changed clothing and picked up a revolver to carry not normally carried, indicates minimally he was personally scared. I believe Oswald was innocent of the Tippit killing and that Oswald headed from his rooming house to the Texas Theatre for a scheduled meeting in that theater. However a critical question and unknown is was that meeting, planned for a time that afternoon, prompted by a phone call from Oswald from a pay phone before or after the assassination calling for that meeting. In a separate discussion with David von Pein I went into the money found on Oswald's person after his arrest. I believe it is very credible that the ca $180 cash with Marina in Marina's room was not unusual but represented normal banking practice of Oswald's earnings for a couple who did not use bank accounts and for a breadwinner Oswald who was paid in cash (TSBD): he would give Marina all of his earnings (cash) to keep safely at the Ruth Paine house and keep only ca. $15 in his pocket enough for spending money until he would see her next and replenish, something like that, safer than Oswald carrying large amounts of cash on his person or stashed in an insecure room at his rooming house. The point: the $13.87 Oswald had on him at his arrest on Fri Nov 22 does not reflect a known intent to flee Dallas, anything other than usual living in Oak Cliff and Dallas as before. It is looking to me like Oswald was fully unwitting of an assassination being planned and was framed and blindsided. No fully satisfactory solution to who killed Kennedy (in the sense of other than LHO alone) has come forth in the years since (or if one has it has not succeeded in convincing most other investigators, always not a good sign for any proposed solution), but that is not as unusual as it sounds given that a large number of crimes in history are not solved above the level of unsubstantiated suspicion.

That is interesting. The man who test-drove the new red Comet Caliente at the Downtown Lincoln Mercury on Sat Nov 2 who represented himself as Oswald, may have actually been Curtis Craford or someone like him working in mob interests for the purpose of framing Oswald in advance, by means of the “three weeks” later when he told the dealership he would come into money and pay cash for the car. There may or may not have been a second mob-related person already inside that dealership, the recently employed Lawrence who reportedly claimed as a prior reference a dealership in New Orleans that was later found to be a bogus reference. Lawrence is the salesman who made sure on Nov 22 that the Nov 2 “Oswald” event was reported to the FBI when the rest of the dealership management were not intending to report it. Lawrence however later denied he had been in New Orleans etc. The “Oswald” figure on Nov 2 unreasonably wanted the dealership to give him a new car with nothing down based on an unverified verbal promise of cash in three weeks. He had to know that request would be a nonstarter and would not succeed. But what if the dealership (dealerships always hungry for sales) had told him, “we will hold this car for you (the new red Comet Caliente) for three weeks until—what day did you say? Oh, Nov 20 or 21?—That will be just fine, sir.” “Then so long as you are able to make a reasonable down payment we will work out the rest of things then.” And in this scenario in the best case “Oswald” (who is not Oswald) walks out paper in hand, and those at the dealership witness that “Oswald” will pick up the red Comet Caliente about the time of the assassination. In the event that did not happen, the dealership did not offer that, but what if it had? Then the assassination happens Nov 22 from Oswald’s workplace; police find his rifle, that he had sold on Nov 11, on the sixth floor; and a red getaway car is discovered to have been reserved by Oswald three weeks earlier.

Thanks Miles Massicotte and Tom Gram for the comments and references relevant to the immunity issue, makes sense. Tom I found in your link to the Armstrong archive file the Feb 19, 1977 HSCA interview of Wesley Wise interesting. I note the reason the suspicious car came to the attention of mechanic White--so far as this account goes--was not from seeing the car driving at speed or recklessly (that in mechanic White's telling he saw after the car left, not before it arrived). Rather it was in a context of police sirens blaring, a fugitive at large in the assassination of President Kennedy (heightened tension and suggestibility), and the car looked unusual to mechanic White in the way it was parked at the El Chico Restaurant, not the way a normal person would park to go eat in the restaurant. (Was what mechanic White interpreted as the driver seeking to "hide" from police in the way his car was situated a misinterpretation of a driver positioning his car so as to get the best view of pedestrian traffic on N. Beckley?) "The mechanic [White] said he was working in the garage listening to the radio accounts of the assassination and their reports that the suspect was still at large when he heard sirens blaring as police cars were all over the area. The mechanic went outside and looked around. He noticed a man sitting in an irregularly parked car in the restaurant parking lot slightly hidden by a billboard (either hidden from him or from the road, or both). This man appeared to be hiding from the police cars which were patrolling the streets. The circumstances combined to make the mechanic suspicious of the man so he crossed the street to get a better look. When he was at a distance of about 10-15 yards the man in the car turned in his seat and faced him head on, giving him a good look at his face. The man was wearing a white "T" shirt. The man took the license number of the car and made a mental note of its description. Later than night or the next day the man saw a picture of LHO on the television news and recognized LHO as being the man he saw in the car in the parking lot. The mechanic was afraid to go to the authorities and had not done so when Mr. Wise and Mr. Pate (or someone from CBS) came to talk to him about what he knew. Wise talked him into going with them to the F.B.I. together with the note which he was still carrying which contained the license number of the car he saw. "The authorities traced the license to a car in a driveway in Garland (an area northeast of the city, in the opposite direction from Oak Cliff). They spoke with a woman in the house where the car was parked and discovered that she could not account for the whereabouts of the car at the time it was reportedly seen by the mechanic. She could account for the car about an hour and a half after that. An hour and a half afterward her husband had gotten into the car i a parking lot of Collins Radio in Garland. The husband got into the car in response to the wife's request that he come home. It turns out that this couple were good friends with the Tippitts and had been called by Mrs. Tippitt to be with her when she learned of her husband's death." (https://digitalcollections-baylor.quartexcollections.com/Documents/Detail/lho-arrested-at-texas-theater-nov.-22-24-1963-wes-wise/688777?item=688797) Also, on that last detail, Myers says it is not accurate or correct that the Mathers received any phone call from Mrs. Tippit that day, and is convincing on that point citing the Tippit home's phone records (With Malice, 796 n. 1204). That means the Mathers learned of Tippit's death over the news and suggests the Mather family (Carl and Barbara and two children) drove all the way from Garland to Mrs. Tippit's home in Oak Cliff without calling in advance. Under the circumstances I do not know whether that would be unusual or not. Maybe it was better that way than calling. Upon arrival one could go to the door and gently find out whether company for Marie Tippit was wanted, if not drive away.

Tony -- As Myers recounts it by about 1:31 pm there was news radio reporting that an officer had been killed but the name was being voluntarily withheld by news stations until the family could be notified, even though police had learned the name of the one of their own who had fallen from police radio by 1:28 pm. The broadcast of the name at 1:49 by one news station (NBC affiliate WBAP-TV in Fort Worth) broke the voluntary news stations' protocol of the others. Myers tells the stories of Tippit family members hearing of the death of J.D. over the radio, phoning Marie Tippit to tell her the news reports, Marie phoning the police to ask what was going on, being told over the phone in response that it was true her husband had been shot and was dead. I don't know that anyone knows for sure what kind of radio Brewer had but most people other than reporters do not normally have police radio. From Myers, With Malice, pp. 738-739 n. 617: "[the shooting of Officer Tippit] was very likely broadcast at about 1:31 p.m. over KBOX radio. There were five major radio stations covering the Dallas area--WFAA (670 AM), WBAP (820 AM), KRLD (1080 AM), KBOX (1480 AM), and KLIF (1190 AM). All of them routinely monitored the Dallas police radio. A review of archival recordings made by the four radio stations show that neither the shooting in Oak Cliff nor its location was broadcast until after Oswald was arrested at 1:51 p.m. [emphasis Myers']. However, the archival recordings of two of the radio stations--WFAA and KBOX--do not cover the entire assassination period. The WFAA recordings begin at 1:47 P.M.; KBOX recordings begin at 1:35 P.M. A 1:59 P.M. KBOX report from newsman Sam Pate, repeats information known to have been previously broadcast, including a report about the Tippit shooting ("Moments ago a police officer reported to have been shot down at Tenth and Patton in the Oak Cliff area. Several squads of police, approximately twenty men, ordered to the Oak Cliff area. A late word shows that the police officer was dead on arrival at Methodist Hospital.") This KBOX report on the Tippit shooting was probably broadcast earlier on KBOX shortly after 1:31 p.m. when it was reported over the Dallas police radio that Tippit was DOA at Methodist Hospital (...) KLIF archival radio recordings show that at 1:27 p.m. KLIF announcers began reporting the 'strong rumor' that the President was dead. The official announcement came eight minutes later, at 1:35 p.m."

Thanks for these comments. Yes, it was striking to me that the most obvious candidate for identification of a person in a car with license plates registered to Carl Mather seemed not to have previously been considered: Carl Mather. That Mather face does have an "Oswald-like" look to it such that one can well imagine mechanic T.F. White's reaction when he saw a photograph of Oswald on the news the night of Nov 22. Of course for some reason Oswald, a somewhat generic and nondescript young white male in appearance, prompted many claims of mistaken claims of sightings on the part of persons who had no prior knowledge of him. The immunity from prosecution detail you mention Miles, yes, that is interesting for the obvious question analogous to when someone takes the Fifth, in court one is not supposed to find that prejudicial but everyone wonders, "what are they afraid will come out about them?" I did not press that point in my paper (beyond passing reference to the immunity) though for this reason: lack of knowledge whether that was usual and a formality (a wise policy if so to encourage all witnesses called by HSCA to be uninhibited in talking)--whether that was general or specific from HSCA to Mather, and whether that was HSCA's initiative or requested by an attorney for Mather, the circumstances of that. Maybe someone knows that information but I do not.

Update Jan 9, 2024. I have removed the article by that title from my website pending rewrite.

My hope for the future, here is where the Martin Luther King activity is happening: the movement in Israel called Standing Together. I like to think JFK and RFK would have supported more room and space for voices like this if they had lived. “None of us will be equal and safe unless the other is equal and safe,” said Abed. “Both peoples are hurting. We need to stop the bloodshed, and that starts from the realization that we all have equal rights to our homeland. We deserve freedom, and no one is going anywhere.” Standing Together (founded eight years ago after another Israeli war on Gaza) and other Israeli peace and justice organizations staunchly oppose Netanyahu, his extreme-right governing coalition, and its religious nationalist mass base (including the settler bloc) and their effort to exploit the crisis to advance an undemocratic, anti-Arab, and ethnic cleansing agenda across what they consider “Greater Israel.” The broader peace movement includes Combatants for Peace, Breaking the Silence, Peace Now, A Land for All, the parliamentary faction Hadash led by the Communist Party of Israel, and scores of other grassroots peace-oriented groups, kibbutzim, and human rights groups. Vivian Silver, a renowned peace activist slain at the Kibbutz Be’eri on Oct. 7, was a member of Women Wage Peace and B'Tselem, a human rights group. These groups reflect one of the contending political currents in Israel. They work at the civil society level to build Jewish-Palestinian unity and forge a new majority consensus for a just peace. They advocate an end to indiscriminate killing of civilians, the siege of Gaza and occupation of the West Bank, settler expansionism and violence, winning recognition of equality and national rights of Palestinians, and security for all. Expressions of Jewish–Palestinian solidarity, despite apartheid-like segregation and polarization, occurred during and in the aftermath of the Oct. 7 atrocities carried out by Hamas. Most Palestinians in Israel, which represent 20% of the population, were horrified. Mansour Abbas, who heads the United Arab List, denounced the attacks, and Bedouin Arabs in the Negev Desert, among those killed by Hamas, attempted to rescue Israeli Jews at significant risk to themselves. This peace and democratic movement strongly believes the 100-year war against Palestinians is a failure, leaving both peoples less secure. Israel cannot destroy Hamas militarily nor ethnically cleanse Palestinians. Nor can Israeli Jews be driven out through armed struggle and terrorism. “A military solution is a very dangerous fantasy,” says Avner Wishnitzer of Combatants for Peace. Only a political solution can create a path to peace, equality, and security for all. “When people have to fight for their humanity or pick a side that cancels the humanity of the other, you need a different solution,” says Abed. “We need a new story and it’s difficult to shift. We need to stop the bloodshed and that starts from the realization that we all deserve equal rights to exist in our homeland and freedom and no one is going anywhere.” (https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/no-ones-going-anywhere-peace-forces-see-intertwined-israeli-and-palestinian-futures/)

In other words, you are not able to produce an identifiable document for the claim even though you have the book. I have the book but it does me no more good than it has you. I could not identify a specific reference either. I am not about to look through the haystack you gave me. You are the one presenting the claim. You should be the one going through that haystack, not me. Usual protocol is when making a claim to cite a specific document and quote from it. You are not doing that.

Marjan, I read the lengthy education forum thread you linked. Like others there I don't buy it. I only found one statement in the entire thread where you spelled out an actual positive argument for a Hickey shooting (the rest was assertions you had found the truth and photo analysis arguing trajectories were theoretically possible): "the strong smell of gunsmoke being the most powerful evidence I think that Hickey fired. No--wrong--the dent in the chrome trim is its most powerful evidence". The problem there is neither of those two items establish Hickey fired since it assumes there are no other reasonable explanations for either of those phenomena, which is not the case. On the other hand, nowhere in the lengthy thread did I see a satisfactory rebuttal to what I cited as two deal-killers to the theory. I don't find satisfactory your only explanation I could find for why no one in the followup car around Hickey told of hearing a burst of automatic weapon fire from Hickey ("I reckon that everybody knew--I mean--Jacki, Bobby, LBJ, Hoover, etc. That's the real reason it has been successfully hidden"). The other, the notion that a random accidental burst from Hickey would only hit the target of the assassination attempt, JFK, exactly where needed to blow his head off, and hit no other person or miss, as opposed to the alternative that that JFK head shot hit JFK where it did because someone aimed it there, I did not see addressed apart from repeated circular assertions that it happened therefore it happened. So thanks, curiosity satisfied concerning what you had, not further curious.

Thanks Gerry. Ewell's detail that the knife was "open bladed" is interesting, not a normal way to carry a knife. Was Oswald fearful of being double-crossed by someone sitting next to him? An open-bladed knife if true should have been part of the investigation as a material fact. The reason it wasn't is explained here as an officer diverting something into private hands. Ewell knew something but Ewell wasn't going to burn a source or a fellow reporter or whatever happened.

Thanks Marjan, will do.